b_lumenkraft

Bernie Sanders Is the Frontrunner. Obviously. He leads the declared candidates in the polls, and he's dominating in fundraising. So why is he being ignored?

Quote

The root of Sanders’s appeal, as Hunt points out, is his performance during the 2016 primary. He won 23 primaries, receiving more votes from people under the age of 30 than Clinton and Donald Trump combined. Some have argued, convincingly, that he won by losing: He not only pushed the Clinton campaign to the left; he pushed the Democratic Party to the left.

I am noticing Buttigieg's support seems to be growing in a substantial way. I don't hate him but I don't love him. I think he will drift toward the center if he wins the primaries. He is the only candidate I am seeing mentioned on my friends' social media, in much the same way Bernie and Hillary were.

I think i mentioned that Gravel has tossed his hat in the ring. For those who don't know, or don't remember:

[wikipedia]

" on June 13, 1971, The New York Times began printing large portions of the Pentagon Papers ... a large collection of secret government documents and studies pertaining to the Vietnam War, of which former Defense Department analyst Daniel Ellsberg had made unauthorized copies and was determined to make public.[71] Ellsberg had for a year and a half approached members of Congress – such as William Fulbright, George McGovern, Charles Mathias, and Pete McCloskey – about publishing the documents, on the grounds that the Speech or Debate Clause of the Constitution would give congressional members immunity from prosecution, but all had refused.[72] Instead, Ellsberg gave the documents to the Times. "

" a federal court injunction halted publication in The Times; The Washington Post and several other newspapers began publishing parts of the documents, with some of them also being halted by injunctions ..."

"Ellsberg returned to his idea of having a member of Congress read them, and chose Gravel based on the latter's efforts against the draft;[7] Gravel agreed where previously others had not. "

"Gravel attempted to read the papers on the floor of the Senate as part of his filibuster against the draft, but was thwarted when no quorum could be formed.[75] Gravel instead convened a session of the Buildings and Grounds subcommittee that he chaired.[75] He got New York Congressman John Dow to testify that the war had soaked up funding for public buildings, thus making discussion of the war relevant to the committee.[76] He began reading from the papers with the press in attendance,[75] omitting supporting documents that he felt might compromise national security ..."

"He read until 1 a.m., until with tears and sobs he said that he could no longer physically continue ... Gravel ended the session by, with no other senators present, establishing unanimous consent[76] to insert 4,100 pages of the Papers into the Congressional Record of his subcommittee ... "

"this four-volume, relatively expensive set[78] became the "Senator Gravel Edition", which studies from Cornell University and the Annenberg Center for Communication have labeled as the most complete edition of the Pentagon Papers to be published"

That guy has more guts than any legislator today. If there were more like him, the torture report would be in the congressional records, and much more. Can you even imagine someone like Feinstein or Schumer doing anything remotely like this ? We have craven cowards, when we need lions.

The Gravel campaign has put out a 29-page platform. It is radical, almost a “wish list” for the left. It includes cutting the military budget by 50 percent, closing Guantanamo Bay, ending the use of drones, vowing not to invade any sovereign nation in the absence of a first strike, closing all military bases abroad, and abolishing the Senate and the electoral college. It contains many ideas that no other Democratic candidate would ever dare to mention. Bernie Sanders, Oks and Williams say, is concerned with appearing electable, and so is careful not to become too “radical.” Mike Gravel, with no chance whatsoever of winning the nomination, can say as he pleases.

So their goal is this: get the 65,000 individual donations necessary to qualify Mike Gravel for the Democratic debates. The donation amounts don’t matter for the purposes of qualifying—they can be as small as $1, which is what I donated. Mike Gravel can say things on stage that Bernie Sanders would never say. He can call for completely terminating U.S. military aid to Israel. He will talk about U.S. intervention in Venezuela. He will bring a radically pacifist voice onto the debate stage and discuss the reality of what war means and why we must prioritize global peace.

You know, like 10 years after Bernie got arrested for protesting for MLK.

It is unbelievable for me that people who supported segregation never did their fair share of jail time. On the contrary, they are well-polled candidates for the 2020 election. You can't make this shit up, seriously.

Hating on Democrats will elect Republicans. Gravel's a great guy, but I'm for the art of the possible. Absolutism and faultfinding of the imperfect (while ignoring the monstrous) gets us Hitler, Stalin, Trump, MBS, Al Sisi, Erdogan, Kim Jong Un, Putin, Duterte, Netanyahu, Bolsonaro, Assad, Mugabe, etc. Undermining allies of social and humanitarian resistance gets you the establishment and coercion.

That said, I wish you all would take a good hard look at Elizabeth Warren, who is in my view the ideal to lead my country. She's not doing well, being a practical woman quite willing to take on the establishment, and surprisingly successful at doing so against great odds, but not inclined to hype and charismatic overstatement. There are several others I'd be happy with, Inslee for his 100% climate focus, Corey Booker, despite a few things

Tulsi Gabbard is a nice pretty woman, who follows a guru and probably could earn the support of the military-industrial establishment. She has some good views, but is weak overall. Rand Paul is monstrous, all about removing all restraint on corporate governance and getting rid of any regulatory restraint on the environment and corporate power.

It's important that as many people that say the right things make it to the debate stage, whether they can win the presidency or not. It's good if Warren, Gabbard, Gravel, Yang, and perhaps some more, make it there and get to have a say, because it's high time the Overton Window gets shoved back a bit. You can't beat Trump with the worn-out neoliberal narratives that worked two-three decades ago. Sort of.

It's important that as many people that say the right things make it to the debate stage, whether they can win the presidency or not. It's good if Warren, Gabbard, Gravel, Yang, and perhaps some more, make it there and get to have a say, because it's high time the Overton Window gets shoved back a bit. You can't beat Trump with the worn-out neoliberal narratives that worked two-three decades ago. Sort of.

LOL. I love how Susan's post began with the "art of the possible" and then advocated for Elizabeth Warren, who wants to breakup Big Tech and reward minorities with reparations.

Any candidate who backs reparations is a non-starter in the United States. Why should I pay for the damages caused by slavery when my ancestors were in Europe at the time (and were subsequently forcibly moved by Germans + Russians)? Should I receive reparations from Neven for acts the Austrians actively collaborated with the Germans to perpetrate back in the 1940s?

Obviously the answer is "no" and also "that is very stupid". The same goes for reparations suggested in the US, where the division / arbitrary nature of "reparations" is even more nonsensical. Warren is a professional at pandering and while that may earn Pocahontas a point or two in primary polls she is not going to win the overall primaries and if she does, she will be destroyed by an enormous margin in the general election.

You can take my points made ^ and apply them to almost any other Democrat currently running. Biden is OK. But I don't think he will win the nomination. I think it will be a moonbat like Bernie Sanders and at that point Trump will crush / destroy in 2020, and if it is Sanders (or anyone but Biden), I would probably vote for Trump as well.

Finally: I would suggest that this insane response from "Susan" perfectly highlights how out of touch middle class Democrats are with working-class voters, especially in the middle of the country. These ridiculous and racist talking points (yes, reparations ARE racist) will only serve to distance the majority of previous D voters from whatever candidate makes these points, furthering the implosion of the party at large. Trump won in 2016 because 95% of Democrats have their heads too far up their own a$$ to realize how US elections work and what talking points are crucial to victory (and Hillary was busy campaigning in states like Georgia and Arizona like a lunatic). They refuse to recognize this three years later (i.e., Susan's post, b_lumenkraft's ongoing posts, etc) so it will come as no surprise when the same thing happens in 2020. It's the economy, stupid, and (IMO) Trump will unwind his trade war in time for a stock market bump through the general election, and that is all that will matter to the voting public.

Why should I pay for the damages caused by slavery when my ancestors were in Europe at the time

Same reason why Germany pays reparations. Because it's the right thing to do.

You will never get rid of the problem, in this case racism, if you can't even admit wrongdoings and put your money where your mouth is.

I had nothing to do with these wrongdoings (re: slavery). My family has never received reparations from Germany or Russia. So WTF are you talking about?

This is the kind of diffuse & nonsensical logic that will lose your people the election. By saying "everyone is racist and white people need to compensate black people for existing" you are going to foment actual on-the-streets racism and make any existing issues much worse.

By your logic Neven should be living in a cave eating porridge and beans for every meal while he gives all of his income to whatever group "enlightened" people like yourself decide is morally correct, for all of the sins Austrians have committed this century. But luckily you are just some stupid Democrat and your ideas will never be practiced in reality.

Final note: if anyone were to ever attempt to implement reparations on a national scale, there would be full scale civil war. Thanks to the Second Amendment, b_lumenkraft's side would most definitely end up losing (and I don't see the military turning against the places where the soldiers originate, in fact, I would see them actively supporting whatever faction is against the liberal lunacy).

Well, what can i say to that? If you really don't know why and for what Germany is paying reparations, that's on you buddy. Entirely on you. Goto school.

I HAVE NOT RECEIVED ANY REPARATIONS. The Germans displaced my entire family and then the Russians did as well. You keep saying "reparations are great," so where are my reparations? My point is you are stupid and outside of identifiable survivors of genocide (i.e. the Holocaust, which has survivors that are literally enumerated and a cast of perpetrators that are easily identifiable) they are unfeasible, and turning back the clock to 1865 on a country that has multiplied several times over in population since then, which does NOT have any living victims or perpetrators re: slavery, is a recipe for disaster.

I think this little exchange exemplifies why most people ended up voting for Trump in the states where it actually mattered. It isn't that people loved Trump (although some certainly did). It was because people like you have keyboards with which you antagonize to no benefit, and the public at large just wants you to STFU.

Why should I pay for the damages caused by slavery when my ancestors were in Europe at the time

Same reason why Germany pays reparations. Because it's the right thing to do.

You will never get rid of the problem, in this case racism, if you can't even admit wrongdoings and put your money where your mouth is.

I had nothing to do with these wrongdoings (re: slavery).

Not personally no.

But what you (and everyone else, including the last immigrant to arrive in the USA) are doing now is enjoying the capitalist fruits of and the privileges of today built upon the blood sweat and tears of the slavery, racism, murder, abuse, and the disenfranchise of slaves and their African-American descendants.

You are standing upon the backs of all America's ancestors, and that very much includes the excessive Profits made from white racist criminal pathologically sick Slave Holders that otherwise would never have occurred and helped to build the wealth of the nation in which you live today.

edit of B_ for better clarity ...You will never get rid of the problem, in this case racism, by remaining a white racist denying the immorality of the past and it's serious impacts upon all the descendants of slaves in the present.

Blah blah blah

Throw yourself in a blender to repent or STFU

In meantime I will vote for Trump and you will keep posting these insane rants online where you are shouting into an echo chamber

I love how random posters who have never built anything or made any meaningful contributions to society love dictating how society should function based on their far-flung and literally INSANE belief systems and then they get angry when their moonbat candidates don't get elected and tell everyone else that we are the problem. LOL. You should lurk more and post less.

b_lumenkraft

edit of B_ for better clarity ...You will never get rid of the problem, in this case racism, by remaining a white racist denying the immorality of the past and it's serious impacts upon all the descendants of slaves in the present.

I will not debate the politics behind this any longer but the race itself. I think that the 2016 Republican primary is a much better analogy than the 2016 D primary as the field this year is similarly divergent with many names making a splash.

It should be noted that Jeb Bush was leading the pack at this time in 2016. Rubio and Walker were second and third respectively. And Trump was nowhere near the lead.

By September 1st, Trump was the clear leader of the pack, Ben Carson was running behind him, and Bush was in third place.

Personally I think this lends credence to a Buttigieg candidacy. I am seeing many problems with Joe, who hasn't even announced yet, but is in a similar position to Jeb in 2016 (elder family name brand politician with low energy and with a legacy that can be drawn out and scrutinized/scandalized to death).

Rubio and Sanders are also somewhat similar firebrands of each opposing side of the political aisle, but like Biden, Sanders has a very long rap sheet of "howcouldhehavedonethats" that can be played out in the press. I think that his legacy in the party puts him ahead of Rubio in that respect but the same legacy is potentially damaging when facing the realities of a modern presidential campaign.

Both Carson and Trump were major party outsiders at the start of the race. Cruz ultimately became the closest candidate to derailing Trump after surpassing Carson and Fiorina's blips (again, both outsiders). But Cruz represented the establishment party against Trump (and Kasich at a last ditch effort).

Who are the rising outsiders in the Democrats' field this year? I think Buttigieg is really the only one. O'Rourke could be this year's version of Cruz. A second-place contender who is young enough to look like they are new to Washington's politics, a faux-outsider. I could see Warren's campaign persisting to an undignified end like Kasich's as well. But if recent history is any guide, the current leaders of a crowded pack are unlikely to hold those positions come summer 2019, and the likely favorite is probably an "outsider" polling middle-of-the-pack with rapidly growing name recognition (and my "on-the-ground" anecdotal evidence further confirms this is Buttigieg).

You mean like Pelosi and others of the corporate dems doing everything possible to marginalize and sideline our young progressive AOC? Like the DNC demanding loyalty? Yeah, that's a great approach. Throw out everything Gen X, Y and millennials care about for more of the same (disaffection with the same was what got us Trump). This is what I criticize my party over--the inability to think about the challenges young people are facing. They are catastrophic and urgent, much more so than Trump's tax returns, Russian intervention and gun control which dominate the agenda. Unchecked climate change will cost billions every year and kill 10s to 100s of thousands. Yet when the Green New Deal is discussed, it's done in the light of ensuring it never sees the light of day to placate who? The money makers? Certainly not the progressives who would drive an agenda focused on a better life and future. It's fucking crumbs, Susan. That's the corporate dem policy. Placate them with crumbs. What ever happened to truth to power?

Logged

b_lumenkraft

Pointing out flaws of the political system, discredit politicians who are corrupted, protest for the issues that are important to you, cut support to those on the wrong way, point out the ones who play unfair, debunk lies, calling the war criminals just that, all this is fine and necessary in the democratic process.

You mean like Pelosi and others of the corporate dems doing everything possible to marginalize and sideline our young progressive AOC? Like the DNC demanding loyalty? Yeah, that's a great approach. Throw out everything Gen X, Y and millennials care about for more of the same (disaffection with the same was what got us Trump). This is what I criticize my party over--the inability to think about the challenges young people are facing. They are catastrophic and urgent, much more so than Trump's tax returns, Russian intervention and gun control which dominate the agenda. Unchecked climate change will cost billions every year and kill 10s to 100s of thousands. Yet when the Green New Deal is discussed, it's done in the light of ensuring it never sees the light of day to placate who? The money makers? Certainly not the progressives who would drive an agenda focused on a better life and future. It's fucking crumbs, Susan. That's the corporate dem policy. Placate them with crumbs. What ever happened to truth to power?

AOC is a brain-dead moron and embracing her politics will LITERALLY be the end of the Democrats.

Agreed, we need 1000 AOCs. The more diverse the people with principles we have, the better. Everything is better than Corporate Democrats.

BTW, is there snow in your head, bbr, and has spring started early where you live?

AOC killed Amazon's HQ2 in NYC. She does not understand basic economics. Subsidies were to be given but the revenue generated from 40K new jobs at $100K avg salary a yr would have more than outpaced and given massive new revenue stream to LIC. It was a total disaster and it was largely her fault.

AOC killed Amazon's HQ2 in NYC. She does not understand basic economics. Subsidies were to be given but the revenue generated from 40K new jobs at $100K avg salary a yr would have more than outpaced and given massive new revenue stream to LIC. It was a total disaster and it was largely her fault.

What I've seen about that story, was that Amazon was playing games, trying to get something for free, and as an added bonus all the development plans of major cities around the US for free. As for AOC's involvement, I don't believe for one second she has as much power as you imply. So, this is basically a smear, which convinces me even more that the US needs 1000 AOCs to really start making a difference.

But AOC is not running for the White House, so please, leave the Fox-smears where you found them, thanks.

knife fights in the trenches: buttigieg working with anti sanders democrats

"They hate everything our political revolution embodies," wrote Shakir. "They hate Medicare for All, the Green New Deal, breaking up big banks, free public college for all."

" Speaker Nancy Pelosi; Senator Chuck Schumer, the majority leader; former Gov. Terry McAuliffe of Virginia; Mayor Pete Buttigieg of South Bend, Ind., himself a presidential candidate; and the president of the Center for American Progress (CAP), Neera Tanden."

"Splinter's Libby Watson pointed out that a significant component of Sanders' popularity among progressives lies in the fact that he is despised by the corporate donor class and the Democratic establishment."

"How, some Democrats are beginning to ask, do they thwart a 70-something candidate from outside the party structure who is immune to intimidation or incentive and wields support from an unwavering base, without simply reinforcing his “the establishment is out to get me”’ message — the same grievance Mr. Trump used to great effect?"

" “There’s a growing realization that Sanders could end up winning this thing, or certainly that he stays in so long that he damages the actual winner,” said David Brock, the liberal organizer, who said he has had discussions with other operatives about an anti-Sanders campaign and believes it should commence “sooner rather than later.” "

"Mr. Gifford, who has gone public in recent days with his dismay over major Democratic fund-raisers remaining on the sidelines, said of Mr. Sanders, “I feel like everything we are doing is playing into his hands.” "

what ever will they do about bernie ? he went on fox in bethlehem PA. Which is trump country. He killed it. Had the audience cheering. The guy might even make the dem nomination clean on the first round.

In many ways, Sanders represents the democratic party's version of Trump. People are so sick of the usual BS politics, they'll toss money and votes at someone outside the norm that has the right talking points. This is panicking the party because they can't control it and it might (will) cost them significant money. Fortunately, Sanders (mostly) says things I support vs. Trump's stump of hatred and protection from the "other."

Agreed, we need 1000 AOCs. The more diverse the people with principles we have, the better. Everything is better than Corporate Democrats.

Agreed. I don't love everything AOC stands for but I admire her enthusiastic push on political norms and she understands that incrementalism is going to kill us all. She's the sort of candidate I look for when voting these days.

Robinson at current affairs savages Buttigieg: Pete Buttigieg is all about Pete Buttigieg.

"When asked why he wants to hold an office, he talks much more about who he is than what he will do."

"He’s from the Rust Belt so he’s authentic, but he went to Harvard so he’s not a rube, but he’s from a small city so he’s relatable, but he’s gay so he’s got coastal appeal, but he’s a veteran so his sexuality won’t alienate rural people. This is literally the level of political thinking that is involved in the hype around Buttigieg."

"A labor organizer friend of mine has a test he uses for politicians: When they talk, is it all about themselves, or all about the causes they care about? Do they talk incessantly about their Journey and their Homespun Values, or do they talk about people’s needs, the power structure, and how to build a more just world? "

"I actually understand the appeal ... He can say all the words you want to hear ...But the question is always: What do you actually mean by this stuff? ... If a statement can mean many things to many people, what are you sticking up for? What can we expect of you? You can always achieve unity through vapidity, but you can’t achieve anything else."

He is a moderate and appears uninterested in tax hikes or other schemes that would damage the economy. In fact his lack of specifics / overall moderate + status quo sensibilities are why I support him, as Sanders + Warren are full of pie in the sky nonsense that (IMO) would also be damaging to the US economy and civil cohesion.

I should note that I did not vote in 2016 as I was content with either outcome. If 2020 is Buttigieg v. Trump, I will probably do the same. If Sanders or Warren win the nomination, I would likely vote for Trump.

Am i right that you would describe yourself as a right-leaning centrist, Bbr?

May i ask what the 'pie in the sky nonsense' is you are opposing so badly and why it wouldn't work for the US?

Not asking for an essay of you but a couple of concrete points perhaps.

Anything "free" is never "free", Warren's college debt forgiveness plan is an insult to the people who actually paid for college, as well as the people who have paid off their loans, as well as the people who didn't go to college because they couldn't afford it. It is the most juvenile and divisive form of pandering I have seen yet this election cycle.

Bernie is similarly campaigning on "free" nonsense even if the specifics aren't as hashed out as Warren's lies.

I think national healthcare should be available for anyone with a BMI under 30. The vast majority of cost overruns are due to a small minority of morbidly obese patients who suck up an exceedingly huge percentage of resources. So perhaps in that single regard I am a "conditional" socialist.

Otherwise I am staunchly against "big government" as I find that government's main purpose is to perpetuate and expand its own existence rather than to benefit the people which it purportedly serves. I don't care too much about social issues, IMO they are only useful for pandering to plebes without committing to any actual meaningful issues (i.e. anything to do with taxes).

I voted Obama in 2008 but have not voted since then. I would say my politics have continued drifting rightward since then and I am probably more right-wing than centrist-right but I have no problem with either label.